Voice of the people (letter).

Codes Ensure Safety Of Old Buildings

CHICAGO — Having read the Nov. 17 editorial "Watch out for falling terra-cotta," I applaud the Tribune's observations about the very real problems that exist in some older buildings in the city and your encouraging of building owners to comply with the Chicago code regarding maintenance and inspections. But the editorial gives erroneous information that will be misleading to many building owners.

The provisions of the municipal code that deal with this issue require that so-called "critical examinations" be performed on a four-year cycle for all buildings except those buildings that participate in the "ongoing inspection and repair program" and that file required annual reports acceptable to the commissioner of buildings.

The editorial incorrectly states that all buildings over 80 feet or six stories must file annual inspection reports and also file "critical examination" reports every four years. This is not the case under the present law. Those filing acceptable annual reports under the "ongoing inspection and repair program" are exempt from the requirements to file four-year "critical examination" reports. Likewise, those filing "critical examination" reports are not required to file annual reports but are mandated to file a subsequent "critical examination" report four years hence.

The reasons for this approach are simple. Buildings owners who are doing proper and timely maintenance on their buildings on a regular basis need not be subjected to excessive and overly expensive reporting requirements. The ordinance was crafted in this manner so as not to be punitive to building owners already doing this work responsibly. Filing of the annual report is intended to be a simple process, which should require only a small amount of follow-up reporting for the professional involved in the owners ongoing maintenance program.

In most instances, the "critical examination" process is a somewhat more cumbersome and costly process but a very necessary one for certain types of building facades that have been too long without a program of proper maintenance and repair.

It should be pointed out that the 2 1/2-year-old program is providing meaningful results. Many older buildings throughout the city are being maintained, repaired and inspected to levels not present prior to the passage of the 1996 ordinance. But, as you have pointed out, many more buildings need to be brought on board and into compliance with the program, preferably by a sense of obligation and not merely in fear of punitive measures by the city for non-compliance.

The existing Chicago code requirements for exterior wall maintenance and inspections are certainly not a panacea, and no number of inspections of older buildings can guarantee that incidents like the ones cited in recent news stories will never occur again. But compliance with the intent of the present code requirements, if performed by concerned building owners and qualified professionals in a professionally managed program of building maintenance and repair, can provide reasonable assurance that the well-being of the public is being served.